Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

I always feel like somebody's watching me

It looks like Austin will become the next city to waste money on expensive anti-crime cameras that will never live up to the crime-reduction promises made to secure them. Reported KXAN-TV:

The Austin Police Department laid out a plan for more than two dozen public safety cameras to be put up in two high-crime areas of the city.

The Austin Public Safety Commission heard the plan at their meeting Monday night and voiced little opposition. The APD plans to install the majority of the 26 cameras in the Downtown area and some at Rundberg Lane and I-35.

"One of the things that we know is that public safety cameras can actually reduce crime so they're very important to us," said Assistant Police Chief David Carter.

Opponents of the cameras argue they invade privacy and do little to deter crime and instead displace it.

"Displacement of crime is not the ideal goal here- what we really want to try and do is solve and prevent crime," said Carter.

The department announced that part of their plan includes an accountability committee and training officers to watch the videos. Any images that do not capture a crime will be automatically deleted after 10 days.

I despise public surveillance cameras at least as much because they're a colossal waste of money and police manpower as for the civil liberties concerns. It's just a dumb, simplistic way to spend valuable police time, both diverting the officer who's watching the video from other duties and overallocating resources by deferring supervisory decisions to camera operators. It's one of those "common sense" ideas that sounds like it ought to work but which has been repeatedly tested in the field and proven ineffective. As security theorist Bruce Schneier wrote recently in a recent column for CNN:

There are exceptions, of course, and proponents of cameras can always cherry-pick examples to bolster their argument. These success stories are what convince us; our brains are wired to respond more strongly to anecdotes than to data. But the data is clear: CCTV cameras have minimal value in the fight against crime.

Last year the British Home Office distributed research-derived guidance to local police based on years of data concluding that cameras failed to reduce crime when used generally in "city centres" or in public housing projects, with one notable exception: Cameras do reduce crime when directed at parking lots and coupled with extra staffing and sufficient lighting. But otherwise generalized public surveillance by the law enforcement isn't particularly useful, especially when one considers the opportunity costs.

Which brings us to another problem with camera surveillance for crime fighting purposes that's seldom discussed. Cameras can be defeated with inexpensive, low-tech means like sunglasses, hats, hoods, minimal disguises, spray-paint, or a six-cent paintball pellet. So it's easy to thwart cameras, but whenever a crime occurs, police must watch video (frequently hours of it), usually with little benefit to the case. And while they're doing that, they are not investigating other crimes.

I borrowed that last argument about cops wasting their time watching video from a "world-weary" London cop/blogger who complained in 2006 that "CCTV viewing occupies a disproportionate amount of police time with very little tangible result. This fact is well known to street criminals." When both cops and the street criminals know cameras don't actually combat crime, the only reason left to favor cameras is to fool the public into thinking you're doing something as a PR stunt. But when a public relations ploy comes to divert scarce police resources on a significant scale, it actually harms public safety overall.

This is sort of like getting in on the end of a fad after all the hipness and cool is gone and all that's left is a hollow, commercialized shell aimed at selling a product. Nobody really benefits from this scheme except whoever's selling the city the cameras.

San Antonio set up a few of these cameras downtown also. If I remember correctly, they had so many glitches with the system that it proved ineffective. The cameras are still up and apparently there are eyes watching, but I think the jury is still out on their effectiveness. Seems to me a better solution would be to put more feet on the ground in high-crime areas rather than relying on cameras and dispatching officers from miles away.

The city of McAllen is installing cameras around town. The chief of police said something along the line the cameras will not be monitored by anyone but will be reviewed once a crime has occurred to look for clues.

The point of this post -- that cameras are typically a colossal misuse of money and manpower -- is well-taken. However, it lacks punch because it does not provide an persuasively attractive alternate strategy or strategies. Cameras gained favor as an alternative to more and more manpower. I strongly sustpect that when and only when an equally "simple" and compelling alternative to cameras and monitoring them is proposed will their popularity fade.

Just to have said it, BHorton2, this blog has frequently suggested alternative means for boosting manpower that would cost nothing and actually expand police coverage instead of reduce it (as happens when officers are taken off the street to watch cameras).

As I read this post I kept thinking, where are the citizen's groups? The media, and blogs, bring up the issues, we get enraged and then it's on to the next thing. More people need to do something about a cause (cameras to catch bad guys! is one cause). I'm serious, people need to get involved, fight, stay in it for the long haul, try to change a bad idea, it's not going to happen otherwise (until we start getting public servants serving the public again). More people need to get involved instead of just complaining.

It's just a matter of time before cameras are in bathroom stalls.Then the whole can watch you take a crap,The envoirmentalistcan comment on how much paper you use the FbI can tell you how suspicious you look when you pull your pants down and when your passing fecies.It's just a matter of time.

To those saying that Cops are your friends, and how if you need one you'll want one.

First, Cops are NOT your friends. They are there to find guilt in ANY situation, so to the 'not your enemy' comment.. WRONG! Numerous false arrests are shown, proven every year that one cannot take any other conclusion that cops are there solely to violate your civil rights, period. As far as needing one if I have something occur to me. The police have nothing at their instant disposal that I cannot retrieve from my closet, beside table, or 10 years army experience in a combat arms MOS; plus I would better trust the lives of my family or friends with my aim and trigger squeeze than some ego-driven dude that needs anger management classes.

Cops are just like every other entity in society. There are winner's and loser's.Problem is,There is a new crop of cops out there.The older ones Admit that there are New lot of new shaved head's out there that really don't understand there job and are qiuck to anger and fly off the handle.

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Woodlands

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"